I am late to the Plame game thing--and I may be bringing a knife to the gun fight, but herein a different view:

Depending on the level one views this contretemps: (1) a white house staff anxious to screw a rogue diplomat who gave them some bad press. If that were in fact the case, Rove, Libby et al. deserve to be indicted for sheer stupidity, when they could have put the whole thing in the open and refuted the charges in open court so to speak;

More ominously:(2) a Rogue CIA, knowing their intelligence and analysis was absolutely wrong in the run up to the war, leaking information to discredit the White House so as to cover their sorry asses--an argument even more coherent because the CIA also enlisted a member of the Dept of State to cover for State's INR operation.

The former is bad enough if true; the latter is even more ominmous because it suggests that an out of control agency can attempt to bring down an elected administration by selective leaks including a compliant and prostituting press--

Perhaps both versions are true; but knowing Washington politics and how leaks are done to screw the administration and the bureaucracies, and to maintain one's bureaucratic turf, I am inclined to the latter theory.

AND we have a model: I give you Mark Felt--hero d'jour of the MSM in his role as deep throat; but I can also give you an equally credible version of my second scenario--Mark Felt was a disgruntled, pissed off, vindictive bureaucrat, furious because HE was passed over for the position of director, and decides to bring down a duly elected President (not that RMN was any great shakes as a paradigm of virtue, coupled with the fact that he had a sycophantic staff--no heroes here) but what is the preferred model of our government?

Unelected bureaucracies in league with unelected media subverting democratic elections?

OR

Administrative hubris and stupidity of elected officials who view elections as unfettered mandates and how they fail to understand the rules of the game

Of the two, I prefer the latter--at least I have the opportunity to unelect them periodically.

I would encourage the parsers on this page to step back and take a larger view--the Republic just may be at stake.

I can't keep up with the press minutiae on this - it is quite possibly the worst reporting on a semi-important story that I have ever seen.

Wrt the choices you proposed, I suppose that I agree that it would be better that Libby and Rove were filled with hubris and stupid. Unfortunately, that is an argument without foundation. Rove's elevation to a staff position is an indication that the President does not consider him to be at risk. In a way, this reminds me of Iran-Contra and what was done to Weinberger. It's almost the same cast of characters with the same political objective - damage to the Republicans with a trial held during an election year.

The Dems and the DeMSM are certainly stupid enough to go to the same well - they haven't had an original thought since the purchase of the black bloc in '67. Whether the actions put the Republic in peril is an interesting question.

As far as I'm concerned, the Republic will be in peril as long as a Democrat holds public office but others may differ as to that assessment. The CIA and State are both undergoing long delayed purges and hopefully as the Dem sycophants and courtiers are eased out the situation will improve. The President has more than three more years left in office. It's a tad early to be calling him a spent round.

It is extremely doubtful that an American Ambassador's wife could ever be a deep cover agent without arousing suspicion.How covert can a nordic blonde be in countries where the population is dark skinned?

That the company Plame worked for was a shell,a front for the CIA would have been common knowledge in the intelligence world.All cars going to Langley would have their numbers noted,times and dates etc

“when they could have put the whole thing in the open and refuted the charges in open court so to speak”

The so-called open court is virtually controlled by the leftists. White House officials are damned no matter what they do. Since when have the MSM and the rest of the liberal establishment ever been concerned about the possible leaking of classified information? We know this much: neither Rove or Libby endangered a secret agent. There is absolutely no reason for them to lie to an investigating prosecutor. At the very most, they might be guilty of something similar to an individual driving 55 1/8 miles per hour in a 55 mile zone. If this is the case, we all should be worried sick. Anybody can be put into jail.

How about lessening up the paranoia a bit. This isn't the end of the republic.

There may yet come some good out of this for all citizens. The MSM might look at itself more closely vis-a-vis anonymous sources. I think the WaPo has already gotten the idea. They, at least, had admitted that they were duped by Wilson.

The New York Times made some noises about sourcing problems themselves.

The big guy at Time is leaving at the end of the year because he felt uncomfortable by something he was seeing in their own involvement (Cooper) and plans to write a book about the press and how they use and misuse anonymous sources.

The involvement of their own reporters as part of the story is not going unnoticed by the major players in the MSM.

We just don't see it yet.

I think the way WE can help, is to note sourcing in articles and to never hesitate to point out our mistrust when it smells.

For example, WSJ sourced an article to a former member of the administration. Well, that gives us a lot of info as to whether to trust that person or not, doesn't it. How former? for example. Nothing is ever said about that person actually witnessing the incident that allegedly took place.

The concern in all this, is that, an elective system depends on the unspoken agreement that the parties abide by the decisions of the electors."You won we lost better luck next time".Now one party consider itself to have a moral right to rule,not very different to the "Divine Right of Kings".So much so they are resorting to extra-democratic means to restore their rule.This is not very healthy,from this side of the pond it reads like something out of Robert Graves "I Claudius" or "Claudius the God"

I know that Republicans are afraid of another Watergate and as far as that is concerned Democrats break out in hives when the words impeachment and Clinton are in the same sentence.

But this is not Watergate and while it can be compared to Iran Contra in some ways, it really does not rise to that either.

Who got hurt?

the few people I hear talking about this consider it politcs as usual and if they get into it they are wondering as much about how some guy who happens to be married to someone in the CIA gets sent on a mission like this in the first place. This makes the CIA look like the Keystone Cops.

I don't know where this will lead but I think that someone ran a sting on the Bushies and they just responded in a way that got them in trouble because reporters for most part would lock their mothers in a small dark room to die a slow and ugly death if they could make a name for themselves.

make of it what you will,here's what macsmind dropped/hinted today on his blog:

"Actually though, I've been on this story since it broke, although I have only been able to blog it since this last Summer. Yet over the last two years I have aquired rheams of documentation on this case, and even spent a little time during the 2004 election in South Florida "under cover" working with the DNC and MoveOn, where I essentially got to the truth of the Plame Game (you wouldn't believe how many talked openly of the Game at the time - almost bragging). More of that forthcoming."

from this side of the pond it reads like something out of Robert Graves "I Claudius" or "Claudius the God"

I don't think we're to the Claudius stage yet. More like the Gracchus Brothers stage I would guess. So we probably have another hundred years or so of the Republic.

But there's no doubt in my mind that we Americans with our free speech,representative government, and English common-law rights have been handed the greatest gift mankind has ever seen, a give we naturally take for granted, and like all children who inherit great fortunes we are on the brink of tearing our inheritance to pieces in the fatuous attempt to grab a bigger piece from the other syblings.

- one sided (and non-existent) MSM reporting...and the impact that has on broad public opinion...ie "making the news" not reporting it.

that's something different than "incompetent",yet i don't think the word "sinister" applies.

"treasonous" might.

- branches of the US gov't engaging in a domestic "war" when we have a "real one" going on...this is more than political hardball.

the CIA playing destabilization games with a sitting adminstrationis news to me.add to that it's during a time of war.i don't consider it minor.

- "the loyal oppostition",essentially,*isn't*,and the damage to the country isnot really forseeable,is it??

why choose to risk it now?simply becasue "the opportunity" is there to damage BushCo?

or the pieces have been in play for a while now,and it's simply too late to bail?

"But I also can entertain the possibility that it may not be true, or that it is only partially true."

good for you.

"And I don't see the MSM as sinister by not delving into this, only biased and a bit incompetent. They're just so sure of their position it doesn't occur to them to look elsewhere."

not very good analysts,imo.

i wish i could be more cynical about the Bush Admin's motives and be more doubtful about their decision to go to war in 2003,but the consensusin the Congress was there at the time,and the continuity with previous US policy towards Iraq as well.